I'll try my hand at that, Kevin. In "formal" learning, systematicity
is accomplished in terms of the perspective of a teacher or more capable other,
whose reference is a conceptually consistent history of ideas.
In "informal" learning, the systematicity is accomplished within the
learner's social history -- that is, that which is learned is consistent
with the learner's lived experience.
So actually, both kinds of learning co-occur, but settings,
institutional arrangements are designed to effect formality
or not.
whaddayall think?
Judy.
______________________________________________________________
Judy,
Your thinking on this resonates with my own.
I regard constructivism as providing a basis for theorizing
about formal learning in that it elaborates students' conceptual
structures vis a vis mature competency. Such theorizing enables
the teacher to develop specific plans for bringing the student
along a "hypothetical learning trajectory" (Simon, 1995).
Sociocultural constructs such as Leont'ev's notion of appropriation
more often describe inadvertant learning ...how people develop
through mismatches in conceptual orientation. Of course,
constructivists never quite get it right (and in fact, many of
them recognize the impossibility of getting it right). So even
in good formal instruction some degree of appropriation is
needed on the part of the student. But if the theories of the
constructivist-oriented teacher are "viable" the teacher will
be able to construe her or his intervention as successful. If
not, it's back to the drawing board to develop a better
conceptual model and/or a better intervention from which to
construct a better hypothetical learning trajectory. To teach
formally means to teach for advertant learning along the lines
sketched above.
Switching to the student's perspective, the clarity of the
teacher's presumptions about students' learning gives way
to a good deal of murkiness. Generally speaking, the student
is not in a position to judge, or even to know about, the
teacher's interpretations of what should transpire in some
learning activity. Indeed, there is no qualitative difference
in the learning that happens to follow the teacher's
intentions and that which happens inadvertantly through
appropriation. Constructivist analysts interested in contributing
to the teacher's efficacy tend not to see the inadvertant learning
resulting from appropriation. Sociocultural analysts may be
less attuned to the detailed cognitive models underlying
an instructional approach, and more attuned to the full
spectrum of the students' engagement in the learning activity.
But learning does sometimes tend towards the plans of the
teacher. For such occasions, my preference is to substitute the
dichotomy advertant/inadvertant in place of the more familiar
formal/informal.
David Kirshner
Louisiana State University
dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu